|
LETTER OF ATTY. SOCORRO M.
VILLAMER-BASILLA, CLERK OF COURT V, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legaspi City on the alleged improper conduct of MANUEL L.
ARIMADO, Sheriff IV |
A.M. No. 04-6-313-RTC Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, and TINGA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The administrative complaint at bar
against Sheriff IV Manuel L. Arimado (respondent) of
the Legaspi City Regional Trial Court (RTC) arose
from his enforcement of a writ of preliminary attachment issued in a civil
case.
It appears that on
The writ of attachment commanded respondent
to attach the property covered by T.C.T. No. 43947, but he attached a different
property, one located in the mountain and of lower market value.
Counsel for the plaintiffs thus filed a
Motion to Require Sheriff Manuel Arimado to Explain[1]
his noncompliance with the court order and the writ of attachment.[2]
After respondent submitted his Comment
which merited a Rejoinder from the therein plaintiffs-movants,
the trial court issued an Order dated
x x x x
1.
To ORDER Manuel L. Arimado, Sheriff IV to
attach the property covered by TCT No. 43947 in the name of the defendants; and
2.
To REQUIRE
Manuel L. Arimado, Sheriff IV to explain in writing
within five (5) days from today why he should not be dealt with
administratively for receiving the amount of 1,000.00 Php from the
plaintiffs, thru counsel, Atty. Fernando E. Balmaceda,
Jr. without furnishing the plaintiffs the estimate or detail of expenses
and without securing the approval of the Court (which omission is simple
misconduct) in violation of Sec. 9, Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court (See Danao
vs. Franco, Jr. A.M. No. P-02-1569,
Consequently, the resolution on Sheriff Arimado’s Motion is held in abeyance until after compliance
with this Order is made.
Transmit a copy of this Order together with plaintiffs’
Motion and Rejoinder and the Explanation of Sheriff Arimado
to the Hon. Court Administrator for his information and appropriate action.[3] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In compliance with the above-quoted
1.
That only the amount of P630.00 was received by him;
2.
That he did not demand any amount. It was advanced to him by counsel for
the plaintiff in payment for the necessary expenses in connection with the
implementation of the writ of attachment;
3.
That with due respectf (sic) to this Honorable Court, since the amount will be utilized in
the payment of the Writ, levy of attachment and documentation (to include xeroxing of bond), undersigned did not ask for the approval
of estimated expenses since the sheriff will not be spending an amount in said
implementation;
4.
That if those expenses were unwarranted, then the amount will be returned
to plaintiff after deducting the lawful fees in the total amount of P317.00,
broken down as follows:
WRIT OF ATTACHMENT P60.00
LEVY ON ATTACHMENT 137.00
XEROX (Bond [paper] 40 x P1x
3 sets) 120.00[4]
The Branch Clerk of Court, complying
with the order of the trial court, forwarded to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), by letter[5]
of March 3, 2004, the following documents bearing on Civil Case No. 10203: (1) Duplicate original copy of the trial
court’s Order dated February 23, 2004, (2) Certified copy of the Plaintiff’s
Motion to Require Sheriff, (3) Certified copy of the Plaintiff’s Rejoinder to
respondent’s Comment, and (4) Duplicate original copy of the Compliance
submitted by respondent.[6]
Upon evaluation of the records, the
OCA found that on the basis of the documents forwarded to it by the Branch
Clerk of Court including the comment of respondent, it deemed it no longer
necessary to again require respondent to file his comment. It then recommended that respondent be held guilty
of misconduct in office and that he be suspended for a period of One (1) Month.[7]
The Court finds the OCA’s recommendation in order.
The
conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility,
necessarily so if the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary[8] are
to be maintained.
This
Court has repeatedly warned that by the very nature of their functions, sheriffs
are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully
and to the best of their ability,[9]
and must conduct themselves with
propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion.[10]
In the discharge of the sheriff’s duty
of enforcing writs issued pursuant to court orders for which expenses are to be
incurred, Section 10 of Rule 141[11]
of the Revised Rules of Court expressly provides:
x x x
x
With
regard to sheriff’s expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders
or decisions or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized,
including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel,
guards' fees, warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall
pay said expenses in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the
approval of the court. Upon approval
of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount
with the clerk of court and ex officio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to
the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation
within the same period for rendering a return on the process. THE LIQUIDATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE
COURT. Any unspent amount shall be
refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by
the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff's expenses shall
be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Despite the plain meaning of
above-quoted procedure, respondent failed to comply therewith. His act of receiving an amount for expenses
to be incurred in the execution of the writ of preliminary attachment, without him
having made an estimate thereof and securing prior approval of the court
issuing the writ is clearly proscribed by the rule. Whether the amount was advanced
to him by the counsel for the plaintiffs or he offered to return the excess to
the plaintiff is beside the point, his mere acceptance of the amount without the
prior approval of the court and without him issuing a receipt therefor is clearly a misconduct in office.[12]
WHEREFORE, respondent, Sheriff
IV Manuel L. Arimado of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
4,
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 9.
[2] See Rollo, p. 7; Rejoinder on the Comment of Sheriff Arimado.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Ibid.
[7]
[8] Manapat v. Tolentino, 432 Phil. 943, 952 (2002).
[9] Torres v. Sicat, Jr. 438 Phil. 109, 116 (2002); Vda. de Velayo v. Ramos, 424 Phil. 734, 741 (2002); Wenceslao v. Madrazo, 317 Phil. 812, 820 (1995).
[10] Imperial v.
[11] As amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took
effect on
[12] Vide: Danao v. Franco, Jr. 440 Phil. 181, 185-186 (2002); Comendador v. Canabe, 438 Phil. 99, 107 (2002).